Em Ter, 2005-11-15 às 16:44 -0600, Ron Johnson escreveu:
> On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 11:11 +0000, Antony Gelberg wrote:
> > Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Andy Streich wrote:
> > >
> > >>latest and greatest of everything. What I did find surprising after reading
> > >>this list for a while was that stable meant not only really stable but also
> > >>really slow release cycle. Okay, that's the price you pay for "really
> > >>stable."
> > >
> > >
> > > Why be so hung up on release cycles? I mean, really. You know how much
> > > attention I've paid to Debian's release cycles since installing? Well, other
> > > than the libc5 -> glibc2 conversion, none. Again, it has to be stressed,
> > > there is nothing that prevents the user from upgrading any package they choose
> > > to a later version. None. At all. Stable just means it won't be updated out
> > > from under you. That's *it*. You want newer, go get newer! Have fun!
> > > Debian won't be upset, I promise.
> >
> > It's not that simple. A lot of newbies dive into testing or unstable
> > because they "have" to have the newest stuff, then they don't know what
> > to do when their system breaks.
>
> So it's Debian's *fault* that newbies whine when they make no effort
> to read the Debian web site?
newbie - testing is totally antinomic. It is impossible for a newbie to
use testing reasonabl and provide the expected feedback.
newbie - unstable, that's normal. If you like it that way. And they will
learn a lot.
For who is stable: Experts, sysadmins etc. That a fantastic base where
you can build anything fot it and be sure you can put in production
anywhere because the base is the same. Stable is our Solaris, in their
sense "Stable is the most advanced distribution"
Michel.